Ulhumbrus: Anand said at the press conference that he realised that Carlsen had prepared this variation and did not want to walk blindfold into Carlsen's preparation. Perhaps Anand was thinking of Kramnik's experience at Bonn 2008 when Kramnik walked into Anand's preparation and went on to lose the match.

Bartacus: Instead of 15 Ne4, which resulted in simplification, I would have preferred 15 Qe2. From that square White's queen points to g4,h5 and e6, giving White chances for a king-side initiative (depending on how Black responds).

haydn20: 15. Ne4 was tantamount to a draw offer. 15. Qe2 followed by Kb1 gives chances for both sides with White a bit plus as far as I can tell. White could have tried to stir up something with 18. Qg4 (threatening Bxh6), but it would be quite double-edged. The two are still circling like heavyweights in the early rounds. So far, Anand has gotten in a couple of jabs, but hasn't yet got up the nerve to wade in. Carlsen hasn't shown much of anything: is he still waiting for "his kind of position" or just fighting off nerves?

Joshka: <erniecohen><treat draws as non/games> Exactly. That's why there is hardly any business support. Chess fans, sport fans, the general public who might have a curious interest, want decisive games. Questions of interest from the public are always questions like 'Who won"!! Not, who drew? Any competition, tennis, boxing, baseball, you name it, it's always, "Who won"? Until FIDE realizes this, chess will continue to be buried way back on an obscure burner.

Petrosianic: There's no problem with draws. Lasker-Schlechter was one of the most exciting championships, despite 80% draws. The problem is lifeless draws, which are caused by the archaic rule allowing players to simply give each other half points. This rule made sense when chess was a drawing room game, but not now.

If the problem were any kind of draw, chess would deserve to be on the back burner, because it's always going to have lots of them as long as that's the natural result of a well played game. If you can't stand that fact, go play Shogi or Go.

albrechtschnabel: ... one sixth of the match over already, with only 41 moves having been played. - Chess fans all over the world can *well* complain about the first two games, and we have *all the right there is* to do so. - Maybe there will be a change in the modus one day. This kind of chess is rather boring and *will not* inspire new fans among the young people all over the world to play chess, watch chess, enjoy chess. - So, the modus seems to be encouraging a rather defensive and slightly "timid" chess-playing-style, I fear. - We *can* and we *should* discuss this. Of course! - Albrecht Schnabel Munich.

WiseWizard: I like how Magnus expected to grind Vishy down and wait until he cracks and they end up playing a 16 and 25 move draw. Lol. Then after the first game he says we'll try to play over an hour and the second game is finished quicker than the first. Lol. Anand's experience so far allowing him to impose his will on the match as Carlsen has been forced to repeat positions or end up worse. He has not been allowed to play his style. Carlsen might crack first psychologically if they keep playing these short draws. Carlsen isn't used to such a high level opposition round after round and we know how accurate Anand can be in World Championship matches, Carlsen is used to his opponent cracking after 30+ moves, if Vishy maintains his accuracy I expect Carlsen to make an idiotic blunder.

1.e4! From Vishy is very accurate so that he can get forcing lines from almost every opening therefore imposing his style on the match.

Vishy not playing Qg4 is very practical, leaving the opponents queen so powerfully centralized and aimed at the King is not how you want to continue a game. Allowing your opponent the center and taking the wing is stupid unless there is a clear, concrete win.

guenther42: A lot of speculation about nothing. Did anyone expect a different result after 2 games? As usual with boys and men trying so hard to impress each other, with opinion running a mile wide & an inch deep, maybe just watch two great players play the game. They know what they're doing.

drpavno1: <It's now obvious Anand strategy is, ambush Magnus in the opening, if that doesn't work, be cautious and go for the draw. He couldn't beat Carlsen in the middlegame and endgame, so to keep his title, he adopts such strategy.>

Chess is all about strategy and tactics, so if Carslen could not find answers to Anand's tactics, it becomes clear that being no.1 is different than being a world champion.Carlsen has to find answers to the questions posed by Anand or else wait for an year or two to challange again.

PinnedPiece: Een experienced bullfighters are very very careful until they see the opportunity for the final lunge.

It may very well be Anand's lunge in the end that delivers the killshot.

Magnus may get more adventurous than he should, ruffled by the score, placing too much trust in Thor, not wanting to bore, feeling the demand for more, impatient to gore.....discounting the skills of the matador...

keypusher: <PinnedPiece: Een experienced bullfighters are very very careful until they see the opportunity for the final lunge.
It may very well be Anand's lunge in the end that delivers the killshot.

Magnus may get more adventurous than he should, ruffled by the score, placing too much trust in Thor, not wanting to bore, feeling the demand for more, impatient to gore.....discounting the skills of the matador...

morfishine: <Richard Taylor> Your comment here is misleading: <...Tal played what seems to me to be a more active system (Bc4,Ne4,Nf4 to swap the B with his N) and though they had a lot of draws (Tal-Botvinnik) the games were hard thought (fought)> Tal and Botvinnik met 44 times over their careers. The final score was 12-wins apiece with 20 draws. The remarkable aspect of this matchup, is there were more decisive games than draws, a most unusual characteristic at this level. So your comment that 'though they had a lot of draws' leads one to believe that a majority of their games were drawn, this is simply and factually not true.

Richard Taylor: My point was that while Botvinnik and Tal (like most players) had some great wins in their matches most people forget how many draws they also had. I know the match and there were a lot of wins and losses in fact I played them over at the time (at least the second match) as I started chess about 1958 or so so Tal was the first world champion I knew about.

But the general point is that if you look at GM games you will find that most of their games are draws. In tournaments they tend to take draws with players about their own strength and target the lower rated players. This doesn't happen as automatically as that but it is a general pattern. The draws of such players are also often very exciting and or interesting games.

I've actually forgotten what I originally commented on: but what I liked about the 1960 and 1961 matches was that there were a lot of very interesting games by both players (whereas in the recent fest the games were relatively dull).

Carlsen tactics of boring Anand to death were or was a good one. Anand didn't play like the Anand of old. He looked a bit like a whipped dog. But in the opening rounds Carlsen looked like he had been whacking his dick all night as was trembling and dropping pieces and he played like a pansy...that is when Anand should have gone for his guts but Anand played a bit passively after that: until it was too late and he uncorked the f3. That was a great game: chess is not about being sound it about will power and luck.

It was a strange match. Not enough time for either of them to go for it. Topalov and Kramnik were far more lively in their matches.

morfishine: <Richard Taylor> Carlsen stated games 3 & 4 were "key" since he was vulnerable, but he didn't lose and was able to settle down.

I think Game 2 was more important than first appears due to fact that Anand passed on the Advance variation. Who knows, maybe he thought Carlsen had something prepared and wanted extra time to prepare something himself. Well, we saw what happened: Carlsen didn't offer another Caro-Kann and Anand spent the rest of the match butting his head against the Berlin.
And so Game 2 served its purpose: Carlen secured a draw with the Caro-Kann, erasing one of Anand's precious "Whites"

Richard Taylor: < morfishine: <Richard Taylor> Carlsen stated games 3 & 4 were "key" since he was vulnerable, but he didn't lose and was able to settle down. >

Yes I could see that: in Anand's book he points out how stressed he was in hsi amtch vs. Kasparov, and indeed he had real chances to take it to Kasparov but the psychology worked in Kasparov's favour. But I think Anand was at that stage = or better in ability but a bit less experienced... and Carlsen did well to get over that early stage.

<I think Game 2 was more important than first appears due to fact that Anand passed on the Advance variation. Who knows, maybe he thought Carlsen had something prepared and wanted extra time to prepare something himself. Well, we saw what happened: Carlsen didn't offer another Caro-Kann and Anand spent the rest of the match butting his head against the Berlin. And so Game 2 served its purpose: Carlen secured a draw with the Caro-Kann, erasing one of Anand's precious "Whites" >

Yes. But the Advanced - what about the Panov-Botvinnik? I have, as well as that and the Advanced, played the 2 knights. Fischer did a few times. I know Kasparov played both the Panov and the Advanced at diff. times.

I played through all the games in that match. I read some of the controversy about it also. I recall it when it happened. Karpov was ahead on points. At the time he was the best player in the world and Kasparov couldnt make progress.

I then played over the next match but Kasparov didnt really looks hugely better than Karpov either. In the game where he made a nice sac it was clearly as basic blunder due to fatigue by Karpov.

It was a nice one by Kasparov by the way: and what he did, he suddenly and dramatically swung around to face all the watching fans and media, made dramtic sac, swung back with his very expressive face, clearly "saying":

"Howzat!" He's certainly a character...love him or hate him you cant forget him. He is the Beethoven or the Houdini of Chess!!

I suspect that this quick draw in game 2 against a Caro-Kann cost Anand the match in 2013 just as a quick draw in game 2 against a Caro-Kannit cost Spassky his match against Karpov in 1974, amd for similar reasons.

I suggest that in this respect the Madras match was almost a carbon copy of the 1974 Spassky-Karpov match.

It is possible that Kramnik was right to say that Anand was afraid of Carlsen.

One reason for Anand to listen to Kramnik is that Anand might have then found a remedy eg to play objectively, as Carlsen would play.

This meant playing game 2 as Carlsen would have played it, not granting an easy draw but using White's greater space to place some pressure on Black.

Who knows but that this quick draw in game 2 caused Anand to miss a win in game 3.

Another thing is that by showing a lack of confidence Anand increased that of Carlsen, so to some extent this had the same effect on Carlsen as that of a loss on Anand's part.

yureesystem: Again another easy draw for Anand, this should build Vishy confidence against mid 2800 player; Anand can make easy draws. I believe Carlsen was getting frustrated,and the next game Carlsen almost lost the third game by playing a passive opening.

tranquilsimplicity: <Wise Wizard> That is with regards to Carlsen making a blunder when forced to play dynamically. That is not to suggest that Carlsen cannot play dynamically, of course he can; but he prefers "the grind down". Anand should impose his style at the 2014 Championship. Carlsen seems to have adopted the "wait and see" policy he employed in 2013.#

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
login now.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.

No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.

No personal attacks against other users.

Nothing in violation of United States law.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.